Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4B, PC 07-029, Variance at 1455 Skiles Lane ~ ~~HILLS City Council Agenda Packet Item: ~ ~HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Dept.: Council Mtg. Date: Final Action Needed By: Meagan Beekman ~-~_9_Q~"'!I"~..~.!!Y..~.~.~"~-'-9j!_ij}~ilf=- 02-25-08 .03:04:08 Budgeted Amount: __ Actual Amount: Funding Source: f~~~~~m-~;J~~~~!e!~~J~~::~~uu~]~!lliCi:029---for--a-Vari'a'nce""af'"145!rSkifes'Tir"e~""Base(f-on-th-e-F-in-dfn~j's""or-Faa--an(fthe''''SiJh'm-iHe(rpi~in's';'"'as-] iAmended by the Six Conditions in the February 25, 2008, Planning Case Report. ' i\~in~_tta~'~,qg_m;m_~.f:!~-~@jf~_Yd5m_gli?JlrcJ~lmmfu00fr0L,.'''._.,......''"_.._.._.._.______n_____n____________''___................."."."........."."_"____________________________"_,,,,_'.....''''n''.'."..,..'.'.__n.''____n_______n_____n_""__"_...,........,.'''..."__n'n'' ____ _ _ _n_________n"........'..'''....".".,,_ ____ _ n _ _ _ _ _" '" ,n,..,,,... iApprove Planning Case 07-029 for a Variance at 1455 Skiles Lane, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitfed Plans, as Amen-deit by the-] !Six Conditions in the February 25,2008, Planning Case Report. PTRC: .!'iislUh1e~ti~;~lf~pjj@<;I):;. i X Memo/Letter: ,Resolution No.: iOrdinance No.: February 25, 2008, Memo to the City Council ....; iEngineering Recommendation: -""-,--------- --- Attorney Recommendation: : X jOther: A: Planning Commission minutes; DecemberS, 2007 and"February 6, 2008 (Draft). _~_:_n'=_~~'~~,~.I)'...~..n?_9_Q_~_~J:'J~_~~,i..':1.9..,~_~_~_~__R~_l?g_~__!_t:!__~~,~,..~.I,~,~_~_i_~_9__95?_f!l,~"i,~.t!i_2.~_'n_ ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 25,2008 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner I SUBJECT: Planning Case #07-029 Variance Mathew and Ann Wessberg 1455 Skiles Lane Request Motion to approve Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the six conditions in the February 25, 2008, planning case report. Back2round The property owner is proposing to construct a 576 square foot below grade garage and a 192 square foot above grade addition to the existing one story home at 1455 Skiles Lane (Attachment B). In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a 144 square foot deck over the back of the new garage that would also encroach two feet into the permitted front yard setback for decks. Presently, the dwelling has a two car attached garage that is below grade and does not meet current building code requirements. It has a ceiling height of six feet two inches. Current Minnesota Building Code requires six feet eight inches. As a result of the substandard garage, the applicants cannot park their vehicles in their garage and must store them on the driveway. The proposed addition would be constructed adjacent to the existing garage to the south of the property and remain in line with the front and rear of the existing structure. The addition would replace the existing garage, bringing it up to building code, and provide two new garage stalls and a small addition to the dwelling. The current footprint of the structure is 1,497 square feet. The existing home is a walkout with a tuck under garage facing east. The driveway enters the property from the south and curves to the west to access the existing garage. The property is unique because the south, east, and west property lines are subject to the 40 foot front yard setback requirement. This is due to the property's location along the curve of Skiles Lane and adj acency to Snelling Avenue. The extreme grade shifts from the front to the back yard would \\Ahdocsl\ah\AHdata\P/anningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-029 Wessberg Variance (PC Approved)\022508 - CC Report - Wessberg Variance. doc Page 10f4 permit most of this addition to be located below grade and thus not be visible from Skiles Lane. Because of this lot configuration, alternative locations for a two car garage that meets building code are extremely limited. Along Skiles Lane, the existing structure encroaches ten feet into the 40 foot front yard setback (Attachment B). The proposed addition would increase the encroachment by 13 feet; however, the above grade portion of the addition would remain in line with the existing 30 foot setback for the structure. The dwelling was constructed prior to the current zoning regulations and is likely a legally non-conforming structure. The rest of the dwelling and attached garage would remain unchanged. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a site plan of the property, and elevations of the proposed structure (Attachment B). Findinl!:s of Fact The Planning Commission offers the following fifteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot depth and width exceed the minimum R-l requirements. The lot size of 13,939 square feet is nonconforming in the R-l Zone. 2. The existing structure encroaches ten feet into the forty foot front yard setback along Skiles Lane. The structure meets all other R -1 setback requirements. 3. The proposed addition would encroach 24 feet into the front yard setback. Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback, of this 96 square feet would be above grade and visible from Skiles Lane. The area of the addition outside of the setbacks does not require a variance. The proposed addition would be in line with the existing home, and the portion visible from Skiles Lane would step back with the existing structure. 4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the required front yard setback along Snelling Avenue. 5. The existing and proposed lot coverage meets the R-l Zone requirements. 6. The existing garage does not meet the ceiling height requirements of the Building Code, thus the proposed garage would bring the property into greater conformance with modern building code requirements. 7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 8. Dwellings and garages are permitted structures within the R-l Zone. 9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 10. A garage and addition are permitted and reasonable uses within the R-l Zone. llAhdocsllahlAHdata\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-029 Wessberg Variance (PC Approved) \022508 - CC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 2 of4 11. The lot is comparably unique in the City. The property is situated on the curve of Skiles Lane as it intersects with Snelling Avenue, thus creating three front yard setback requirements to the south, east, and west sides of the lot. 12. The topographic conditions are unique in that there is a significant slope downward from the west to the east which allows the majority of the addition to be built below grade. 13. Since the proposed above grade addition would not encroach any farther into the front yard setback than the existing structure, the addition is unlikely to have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood. The continued encroachment would have a minimal visual impact from Skiles Lane. 14. The addition would be visible from the rear of the property, which abuts Snelling Avenue; however, the area is heavily wooded and the closest neighbor on this side is over 300 feet away. 15. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval (5-0) of Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following six conditions in the February 6, 2008, Planning Case Report. 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and a copy of the RCWD permit or a waiver shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 5. The addition shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. 6. All attempts shall be made by the applicant to move the spruce tree and preserve the oak tree that will be impacted by the project. Options 1. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. Ifthe City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. \lAhdocsllah\AHdataIPJanningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-029 Wessberg Variance (PC Approved) \022508 - CCReport - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 3 of4 The findings of fact in this planning case report support approval of the variance request. If the City Council chooses to deny the variance, findings that deny the variance must be stated for the record prior to voting on the motion. Deadline for A2encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 5, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City had 60 days to review the application or provide the petitioner with a written reason for an additional 60 day review period. The City extended the review period an additional 60 days and must now act on this request by March 4, 2008 (60 days), unless the petitioner consents to extending the review period beyond the 120 days. Attachments A Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; December 5, 2007 and February 6, 2008 (Draft) B February 6, 2008, Report to the Planning Commission- http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/planningcase \\Ahdocsl\ahIAHdata\PlanningIPlanning Cases\2007\Ol-029 Wessberg Variance (PCApproved)102250B - CCReport - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 4 of4 Attachment A Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; December 5, 2007 and February 6, 2008 (Draft) %. ~HrLLS February 25,2008, City Council Meeting WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes PLANNING CASE #07-029 - VARIANCE; MATTHEW AND ANN WESSBERG; 1455 SKILES LANE Ms. Beekman reported that the applicant submitted a variance request to construct a 576 square foot below grade garage and a 192 square foot above grade addition along the southern side of the dwelling at 1455 Skiles Lane that encroaches 24 feet into the setback. She then provided background information and said should the Planning Commission recommend approval, Staff recommends the following six conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and a copy of the RCWD permit or a waiver shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 5. The addition shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. 6. All attempts shall be made by the applicant to move the spruce tree and preserve the oak tree that will be impacted by the project. Chair Sand opened the floor to Commission questions. Commissioner Zimmerman stated the zoning ordinance allows for the formation of a non-conforming lot in terms of the square footage. Mr. Lehnhoff stated they would not allow for the creation of a non-conforming lot without meeting the depth and width requirements. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired if this issue would be addressed when the zoning ordinance is being reviewed. Ms. Beekman stated it will be addressed. Chair Sand inquired about the portion ofthe house that encroaches in the setback. Ms. Beekman stated that almost the entire front of the house encroaches into the setback. Chair Sand inquired if the new addition increases the encroaclnnent. Ms. Beekman stated it does but the above grade portion is in line with the rest of the house. Chair Sand inquired about how below grade structures are treated with setbacks. Ms. Beekman stated they need to meet the setbacks. Chair Sand stated from the east the garage would be visible. Ms. Beekman stated it could be seen from the backyard of the property. Chair Sand inquired about what will happen with the existing garage. Commissioner Larson inquired if there was a method for assigning a front yard for a lot of this shape. Ms. Beekman stated regardless of the orientation there is a requirement to meet the 40 foot setback. Chair Sand inquired about the reason the front entry of the house isn't treated as the front yard. Ms. Beekman stated it is to maintain visual consistency. Mr. Lehnhoff stated this type of lot is rare and the regulations don't apply well. Mathew Wessberg, 1455 Skiles Lane, stated there isn't a plan for the existing garage. He stated the height is slightly higher than 6 feet 2 inches. He stated he doesn't want to keep the garage door and would want to insulate the heat and water supplies. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired if there is a block wall on the back of the garage. Mr. Wessberg stated there is. Chair Sand inquired if there is a door from the garage to enter the house. Mr. Wessberg stated there is a door. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the plan for entry from the new garage to the house. Mr. Wessberg stated it will be through the existing garage and there will be a main door. Chair Sand inquired if there would be a limit of continued use of the existing garage as a garage. Ms. Beekman stated there aren't any existing limitations, but it could be added as a condition. Chair Sand sought clarification ofthe location of the proposed garage. Mr. Wessberg demonstrated the location of the new garage. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the support for the deck for entering the new garage. Mr. Wessberg stated he doesn't know at this point of time and would probably like to use steel. Commissioner Thompson stated there is a safety concern about running into the support for the deck. Chair Sand inquired about how steel would be used. Mr. Wessberg stated he wants to save the oak tree and possibly cantilever the deck. Commissioner Larson inquired about the height of the garage door for the new garage. Mr. Wessberg stated it will be a seven foot garage door. Commissioner Larson inquired if there will need to be a lower floor in the garage to accomplish the height. Mr. Wessberg stated he doesn't want to have the floor lower, but will get the height in the floor framing. Commissioner Larson stated he assumed there is a fall-off to the east and ifthe driveway had to be put a little to the east there wouldn't be a drainage problem. Mr. Wessberg stated he hasn't explored that option. Commissioner Larson stated the driveway might need to be depressed to accomplish adequate drainage. Mr. Wessberg stated he hasn't had the plans examined by a structural engineer at this point, but thinks if it is framed in steel it would be adequate. Commissioner Larson inquired if Mr. Wessberg has explored building the new garage in front ofthe existing garage. Mr. Wessberg stated he hasn't explored that option, but it would detract from the view from inside the house. Commissioner Modesette inquired about the grade of the driveway. Mr. Wessberg stated it is flat. Commissioner Modesette inquired if Skiles Lane is higher than Snelling Avenue. Mr. Wessberg stated it is. Commissioner Modesette inquired if the grade around the house will remain the same and ifthe house will be more visible. Mr. Wessberg stated he thinks it will be less visible. He demonstrated the location of a spruce tree that he would like to move that will block some of the view of the house. Chair Sand stated it is possible for the addition to be in a different location without encroaching in a setback. He stated allowing further encroachment in the setback could set a precedent. Commissioner Modesette inquired about the use of unhabitable space through the existing garage. Ms. Beekman stated the building code might address the issue. Mr. Lehnhoff stated the zoning code doesn't address having a pass through in unhabitable space. Commissioner Larson stated the space is typically considered storage space. Chair Sand inquired if it would meet fire code. Commissioner Larson stated there is a requirement to have separation between automobile storage and the house. Commissioner Larson inquired if Staff could work with the applicant to consider alternatives to avoid increasing the encroachment. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to table Planning Case #07-029, Variance; Mathew and Ann Wessberg; 1455 Skiles Lane. Chair Sand stated he thinks there are some alternatives that could be explored. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2008 Draft Meeting Minutes A. PLANNING CASE #07-029 - VARIANCE; MATHEW & ANN WESSBERG; 1455 SKILES LANE Ms. Beekman reported that the applicant submitted a revised site plan and project description, and is requesting a variance to construct a below grade garage and above grade addition that encroaches 24 feet into the setback. Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback, of this 96 square feet would be above grade and visible from Skiles Lane. She then provided background information and stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval, staff recommends the following six conditions: I. The proj ect shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), and a copy of the RCWD permit or a waiver shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The structure shall conform to all other regulation in the City Code. 5. The addition shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. 6. All attempts shall be made by the applicant to move the spruce tree and preserve the oak tree that will be impacted by the project. Chair Larson stated that this property is unusual in that it has three front yard setbacks. He stated that this makes it difficult to deal with the setbacks. He opened the floor to Commission questions. Commissioner Stodola inquired about insulating the mechanical systems in the existing garage. She inquired about the use of the existing garage. Ms. Beekman stated the applicant intended to insulate the space to address heat and energy loss. Commissioner Thompson stated there was a letter received from Robert Shaffer, an architect at The Foundation, which states that the existing garage creates problems with the existing mechanical systems. She stated that previously the applicant stated he didn't plan to make any changes in the garage and therefore the problem illustrated by the architect wouldn't be addressed. Matt Wessberg, 1455 Skiles Lane, stated he intends to use the garage for storage. He stated he would like to replace the garage door and insulate it. He stated he would like the new garage to be insulated as well. He stated the pipes that run through the garage service the kitchen and is the trunk line for the heat. Chair Larson inquired ifthere was plumbing and heating ductwork in that space currently. Mr. Wessberg stated there is. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to recommend approval of Planning Case #07-029, Variance; Mathew & Ann Wessberg; 1455 Skiles Lane, subject to the six conditions as listed in staffs February 6, 2008 report. Commissioner Thompson stated that the changes from the first submittal were tremendous, and it would be more unappealing to have the addition to the east, and the proposed addition towards the south is more appealing. She stated she appreciates that the new deck is not cantilevered. Chair Larson inquired if Commissioner Thompson was stating that the revised application addressed the Planning Commissions previous concerns. Commissioner Thompson stated she was. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, February 25, 2008, City Council meeting. Attachment B February 6, 2008, Report to the Planning Commission ~ ~HlLLS February 25,2008, City Council Meeting